【作者简介】
赖早兴,湖南浏阳人,汉族,中共党员,法学博士,法学博士后,湘潭大学教授,博士生导师,湘潭大学法学院副院长。
【注释】 Case Law Development, 30 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep. 496,497 July/August(2006).
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at335.
Rita J.Simon,David E.Aaronson, The Insanity defense, New York: Greenwood Press, Inc.1988, at 2.
Julie E. Grachek, The Insanity Defense in the Twenty-First Century: How Recent United States Supreme Court Case Law Can Improve the System. 81 Ind. L.J. 1479, 1479 (2006).
迈克纳顿(M''''Naghten)刺杀英国总理案。1843年1月20日苏格兰公民迈克纳顿试图刺杀大不列颠总理大臣罗伯特?皮尔(Robert Peel),但他误杀了总理大臣的秘书爱德华·德拉蒙德(Edward Drummond)。迈克纳顿因谋杀而在伦敦中心刑事法院接受审判。后来陪审团基于精神病的理由对迈克纳顿作了无罪裁定,法院因此作了无罪判决。然而,这一判决激起了英国公众的强烈抗议,并引发了关于精神病辩护有效性的法律和政治争论。
约翰·欣克利(John Hinckley)刺杀美国总统案。1981年3月30日,罗纳德·里根(Ronald Reagan)前往位于华盛顿的希尔顿饭店,出席一个建筑工会大会并发表演讲。结束后,里根经侧门离开饭店,正待上车之时,混杂在记者群中的欣克利突然掏出手枪,瞄准总统连开数枪,导致多人重伤。当时电视对此场面进行了直播。但审理中,陪审团基于精神病的理由裁定欣克利无罪。公众对欣克利的无罪判决十分愤怒,电视和报纸上评论员几乎一致地谴责这一判决及其所依据的法律。无罪判决后紧接着的民意调查表明约90%的公众赞同取消精神病辩护、主张惩罚实施了犯罪行为的被告人。许多政治人物包括总统里根和司法部长史密斯(Smith)发表声明谴责陪审团的裁定和精神病辩护。
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at356.
Abraham L. Halpern, The Insanity Verdict, the Psychopath, and Post-Acquittal Confinement,
24 Pac. L.J. 1125 (1993).
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at357.
Jenny Williams, Reduction in the Protection for Mentality Ill Criminal Defendants: Kansas Upholds the Replacement of the M’Naughten Approach With the Mens Rea Approach, Effectively Eliminating the Insanity Defense . 44 Washburn L.J. 213, 238(2004).
爱达荷、蒙大拿和犹他州并非首先考虑废除精神病辩护的州。在二十世纪早期,路易斯安娜、密西西比和华盛顿曾制定法案禁止所有的心理状况的证据,不过因缺乏
宪法基础,最主要的是违反了正当程序,这些法案最终没有成为法律。
State v. Byers, 861 P.2d 860, 866 (Mont. 1993).
State v. Cowan, 861 P.2d 884, 887-88 (Mont. 1993).
State v. Bethe,66 P.3d 840, 841 (Kan. 2003).
Jenny Williams, Reduction in the Protection for Mentality Ill Criminal Defendants: Kansas Upholds the Replacement of the M’Naughten Approach With the Mens Rea Approach, Effectively Eliminating the Insanity Defense . 44 Washburn L.J. 213, 241(2004).
Henry J.Steadman, Before and After Hinckley: Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform, New York: the Guilford Press,1993.at45.
如果从历史上溯源的话,最早的精神病标准为13世纪时期的Tracy法官所确立。他认为:如果一个人完全没有理解能力和记忆力,对他所作所为完全不知,理解力不如婴儿、野蛮人、野兽,这样的人不应当作为惩罚的对象。Henry F. Fradella, From Insanity to Beyond Diminished Capacity: Mental Illness and Criminal Excuse in the Post-Clark Era. 18 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol''''y 7, 13(2007).
Nicola Padfield. Criminal Law(3rd edition). Beccles and London: Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd.2002.at 73.
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at300.
Michelle R. Prejean, Texas Law Made This Mad Woman Sane, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 1487, 1490(2006).
Jessie Manchester, Beyond Accommodation: Reconstructing the Insanity Defense to Provide an Adequate Remedy for Postpartum Psychotic Women. 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 713, 732(2003).
Julie E. Grachek, The Insanity Defense in the Twenty-First Century: How Recent United States Supreme Court Case Law Can Improve the System. 81 Ind. L.J. 1479, 1483(2006).
乔恩?R?华尔兹著:《刑事证据大全》(第二版),何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社2004年版,第465页。
Parsons v. State, 2 So. 854, 859 (Ala. 1887).
Richard E. Redding. The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience and Legal Insanity in the Twenty-First Century. 56 Am. U. L. Rev. 51, 81(2006).
Richard E. Redding. The Brain-Disordered Defendant: Neuroscience and Legal Insanity in the Twenty-First Century. 56 Am. U. L. Rev. 51, 54(2006).
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir.1954).
United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C.Cir.1972).
Julie E. Grachek, The Insanity Defense in the Twenty-First Century: How Recent United States Supreme Court Case Law Can Improve the System. 81 Ind. L.J. 1479, 1483(2006).
Sara Longtain. The Twilight of Competency and Mental Illness: A Conciliatory Conception of Competency and Insanity. 43 Hous. L. Rev. 1563, 1592(2006).
Leland v. Orego,343 U.S.790,794 (1952).
Patterson v. New York,432 U.S.197,206(1977).
Sara Longtain. The Twilight of Competency and Mental Illness: A Conciliatory Conception of Competency and Insanity. 43 Hous. L. Rev. 1563, 1595(2006).
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law(3rd edition). New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at 339-340.
参见赖早兴:《英美法系国家犯罪构成要件理论之辨正及其启示》,《法商研究》2007年第4期,第115页。
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at81.
Nicola Padfield. Criminal Law. Beccles and London: Reed Elsevier(UK) Ltd.2002.at 21.
参见赖早兴:《美国犯罪成立要件及其证明责任分配》,《法学家》2007年第3期,第157 页。
Raymond Emson,Evidence(2nd edition), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.at 424.
Leland v. Oregon,343 U.S. 790,795,1005, 1006 (1952),at 802-803.
In re Winship,397 U.S. 358 (1970), at 364.
Daniel J. Nusbaum, The Craziest Reform of them all: a Critical Analysis of the Constitutional Implication of “Abolishing” the Insanity Defense, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 1509, 1517(2002).
Fernand N. Dutile, Thomas H. Singer,What Now For the Insanity Defense? 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1104, 1108(1983).
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at 539.
1800年James Hadfield案中首次作出了因精神病而无罪的判决。Hadfield相信他受上帝的派遣实施自我牺牲行为以拯救世界,在伦敦的一个剧院中向国王King George开枪射击。在审判时Hadfield明显是一个精神病者,许多证人证明了他人疯狂心态。而且,在审判中一些医生认定他发狂行为是由于脑部受伤(他在六年前法国的一场战斗中受伤)所致。陪审团裁定被告人无罪。在公诉团一个成员的要求下,陪审团在“无罪”裁定中加了一句“在行为发生时受精神病的影响”。这就是“因精神病而无罪”裁定的开始。
Amy D. Gundlach-Evans, State V. Calin: The Paradox of the Insanity Defense and Guilty but Mentally Ill Statute, Recognizing Impairment Without Affording Treatment. 51 S.D. L. Rev. 122, 141(2007).
在审判中提出关于精神正常与否的专家证词,不但要求提出者是具有适当资格的专家,而且要求这些证据遵循专家证词的其他规则。Henry F. Fradella, From Insanity to Beyond Diminished Capacity: Mental Illness and Criminal Excuse in the Post-Clark Era. 18 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol''''y 7, 50(2007).
参见乔恩?R?华尔兹著:《刑事证据大全》(第二版),何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社2004年版,第466页。
有人甚至认为专家证人在刑事审判中起了过分的作用而主张废除精神病辩护。例如,蒙大拿州议员Keedy在1979年提出废除精神病辩护议案时称:精神病辩护使心理学专家占领了州的刑事审判!See Rita D. Buitendorp, A statutory Lesson From "Big Sky Country" On Abolishing the Insanity Defense, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 965, 974(1996).
乔恩?R?华尔兹著:《刑事证据大全》(第二版),何家弘等译,中国人民公安大学出版社2004年版,第430-431页。
Glen Weissenberger & James J.Duane: Federal Evidence(4th edition), Anderson Publishing Co.2001,at360.
Ake v. Oklahoma,407U.S.68,105S.Ct.1087(1985).
State v. Jones, 50 N.H. 369, 381 (1871).
Amy D. Gundlach-Evans,State v. Calin: The Paradox of the Insanity Defense and Guilty but Mentally Ill Statute, Recognizing Impairment Without Affording Treatment, 51 S.D. L. Rev. 122,123, South Dakota Law Review (2006).
Julie E. Grachek, The Insanity Defense in the Twenty-First Century: How Recent United States Supreme Court Case Law Can Improve the System. 81 Ind. L.J. 1479, 1486(2006).
美国联邦最高法院虽然支持对因精神病而被判无罪者进行关押,但仍然关押以行为人存在人身危险性为基础。例如在Jones v. United States (463 U.S. 354 (1983).)案中,联邦最高法院认为:“当刑事被告人以优势证据证明他因精神病的理由而不构罪时,
宪法允许政府,基于精神病判决,将被告人禁闭于精神病机构,直到他精神正常或不再危及自身或社会为止。”
美国联邦最高法院在Addington v. Texas案(441 U.S.418,426-27(1979))中认为,除非政府以清晰而确信的证据证明某人正在患精神病并且对他自己或其他人存在危险,否则不应当将此人移交给精神病机构。不过,实行自动移交的州则认为,刑事审判中的精神病裁定本身即是行为人正在患精神病并且具有危险性的可信依据,无需进行另行的听证。
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at354.
Joshau Dressler. Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.2001.at354.